Author Topic: P-51D vs Fw-190D  (Read 3445 times)

Offline Mustaine

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4139
P-51D vs Fw-190D
« Reply #75 on: August 08, 2005, 03:03:49 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by agent 009
As for flaps, yah both could drop flaps. Dora had presets, a bit more sophisticated no? On turn circle, Stang 960 ft, & Dora with flaps down 800 plus ft.
so according to those numbers the dora turned inside the stang?

i'd like to see more about those numbers, and the actual AH abilities.

IIRC kweassa did some tests and the dora was almost deal last of all fighters in turn radius.
Genetically engineered in a lab, and raised by wolverines -- ]V[ E G A D E T ]-[
AoM DFC ZLA BMF and a bunch of other acronyms.

Offline dedalos

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8052
P-51D vs Fw-190D
« Reply #76 on: August 08, 2005, 03:30:48 PM »
190 and Turning should never be used in the same sentance (in AH atlist).


Its like saing the SuperDUD has skills.
Quote from: 2bighorn on December 15, 2010 at 03:46:18 PM
Dedalos pretty much ruined DA.

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
P-51D vs Fw-190D
« Reply #77 on: August 08, 2005, 05:18:43 PM »
I find the raft of "anectdotal quotes" from WW2 pilots that folks fire back and forth like naval salvoes to be interesting, only to the point of showing the confidence in their mounts (the original pilots).

Most fighter pilots spoke highly of the a/c that brought them home at the end of a tour, almost irregardless of type. That being said they are a poor yardstick to compare raw abilities, unless you can back it up with much more info and put it into perspective.

You had to be a different breed of cat to strap yourself into one of those things for real, and actually go out and fly a combat mission in it to begin with. I think thats worth remembering.
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline MANDO

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 549
P-51D vs Fw-190D
« Reply #78 on: August 08, 2005, 06:25:33 PM »
I dont think 190s were designed for 1 vs 1 combat, but for real aerial combat of many vs many, where target focusing (1 vs 1) may be a fatal mistake. In many vs many you need good visibility, armour, thrusty radio, weapons, speed and little workload for the pilot. Few planes, if any, are comparable to 190s for that role.

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
P-51D vs Fw-190D
« Reply #79 on: August 09, 2005, 03:17:48 AM »
Yet there is some anecdotal proof of 190s having mock dogfights and doing well. 190 vs Romanian IAR80 ->win (IAR is considered  more maneuverable), 190 vs 109G14 (dogfighter optimized) -> a draw.

-C+
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8800
P-51D vs Fw-190D
« Reply #80 on: August 10, 2005, 12:39:24 AM »
Haviing just completed some testing, I must conclude that while the P-51D may hold a slight edge on the Dora, the P-51B will give it fits. Again, altitude makes a difference, so I tested at a medium altitude of 16,000 feet.

Here's the stats tested in TA, fuel burn 1.0, takeoff fuel 50% for P-51s, 75% for others.

P-51B: 418 mph, no WEP. 424 mph with WEP.
190D-9: 417 mph with WEP (didn't bother to test without).
Tempest: 413 mph, no WEP. 424 mph with WEP.
P-51D: 405 mph, no WEP. 407 mph with WEP (16k is just below high blower alt, so the P-51D's hp is its lowest here).
109G-10: 399 mph, no WEP. 429 mph with WEP.

At higher altitudes, things change a bit.

25,000 feet.

P-51B: 429 mph, no WEP. 436 mph with WEP.
190D-9: 421 mph with WEP.
Tempest: Not Tested.
P-51D: 441 mph with WEP.
109G-10: 443 mph with WEP.
F4U-4: 446 mph with WEP.
SpitXIV: 441 mph with WEP.

28,500 feet.

P-51B: 441 mph with WEP.
190D-9: 410 mph with WEP.
P-51D: 433 mph with WEP.
109G-10: 436 mph with WEP.
F4U-4: 445 mph with WEP.
SpitXIV: 444 mph with WEP.

At 27,600 feet, the P-51B hits its maximum of 443 mph (sustained for over two minutes, when WEP ran out).

This level of performance puts the P-51B right up there with the very best in the plane set, perked or otherwise.

So, the best altitude for the Dora to engage the P-51D is right around 16k. However, that's not a good altitude to encounter the P-51B.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline hogenbor

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 677
      • http://www.lookupinwonder.nl
Re: Re: P-51D vs Fw-190D
« Reply #81 on: August 10, 2005, 01:29:16 AM »
Quote
When you get to 20k and higher, the P-47N and Ta-152 literally own the place.



Well, I once catched a Ta-152 in a straight chase at 25k... in a P-51B.

I'm average at best, but the P-47N has everything I look for in a fighter, only weakness is its poor climb when heavy. But it can do what Widewing says, and that's blowing through a great numerical advantage picking off people who aren't paying attention. I get quite nervous though when higher cons show up :D

Edit:

Hey Widewing, I just read your last post, you spoiled my secret that the P-51B is so good up high.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2005, 01:32:27 AM by hogenbor »

Offline Grendel

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
      • http://www.compart.fi/icebreakers
P-51D vs Fw-190D
« Reply #82 on: August 10, 2005, 02:03:49 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
I think the Germans that flew the planes with the auto-slats might disagree.  One of the biggest complaints about the bf109 and other planes that had the auto-slats was that they had a tendency to deploy asymetrically while maneuvering.  It was a problem that the Germans were never fully able to fix.  


Incorrect. The slats operated exactly as designed and the problem of asymmertical popout was corrected in the F series and later models.

And what did 109 pilots themselves have to about slats?

Me 109 E:
"I was particularly interested in the operation of the slats, the action of which gave rise to aileron snatching in any high-G manoeuvres such as loops or tigh turns so I did a series of stalls to check their functioning more accurately. The stall with the aircraft clean, with half fuel load and the engine throttled right back occurred at 105 MPH (168 km/h). This was preceded by elevator buffet and opening the slats about 20 mph (30 km/h) above the stall, these being accompanied by the unpleasant aileron snatching as the slats opened unevenly. The stall itself was fairly gentle with the nose dropping and the port wing simultaneously dropping about 10 degrees."
- Eric Brown
- The author writes about an "unpleasant" event. Nothing catastrophic! Surely all of the planes of that time had features, that were unpleasant, just as well as many planes today have. Curtiss Hawk 75 was surely unpleasant to fly with the rear fuselage fuel tank filled, as flying acrobatics could get you killed. P-51 was at least unpleasant with fuselage tanks filled.

Me 109 E:
"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it. This advantage to the Bf 109 soon changed when improved Spitfires were delivered."
- Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.

Me 109 E:
"And there I discovered the first thing you have to consider in a 109. The 109 had slots. The slot had a purpose to increase the lift during takeoff and landing. In the air automatically it's pressed to the main wing. And if you turn very roughly you got a chance, it's just by power, the wing, the forewing, comes out a little bit, and you snap. This happened to me. I released the stick immediately and it was ok then. "
- Major Gunther Rall in April 1943. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories. Source: Lecture by general Rall.

Me 109 E/F/G: - The plane had these wing slats and you mentioned they pop open uneven?
"Two meter slots on fore wings.  The reason was to increase the lift during low speed take off and landing.  To reduce the length of runway you need.  In the air, if you make rough turns, just by gravity, the outer slot might get out.  You can correct it immediately by release of stick, you know? Only little bit, psssssssht, its in, then its gone.  You have to know that.  And if you know it, you prevent it."
- Major Gunther Rall. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories. Source: Lecture by general Rall.

Me 109 G:
"- How often did the slats in the leading edge of the wing slam open without warning?
They were exteneded always suddenly but not unexpectedly. They did not operate in high speed but in low speed. One could make them go out and in by moving the stick back and forth. When turning one slat functioned ahead of the other one, but that did not affect the steering. In a battle situation one could pull a little more if the slats had come out. They had a positive effect of the slow speed handling characteristics of the Messerschmitt.
- Could the pilot control the leading edge slats?
No. The slats were extended when the speed decreased enough, you could feel when they were extended. "
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G:
"- In a battle, which was the case: did the pilot endure more than the Messerschmitt could do or vice versa?
 The fact is that when you pulled hard enough the wing leading edge slats slammed open. After that the pilot could not tighten the turn. The plane would have stalled. I don't know, I never tried to find out what the plane would do after that. I never heard anybody else saying that he would have banked so hard that the slats came out. I did that a few times, for example once over the Isthmus I tried to turn after an enemy, banking so hard that both slats came out, but I had to give up.
- How did the slats behave in such a situation, did they go in and out ?
 It depended on speed, if you pulled more,they came out, then back in
The slats came out completely, never half-way?
 I never came to watch them so intensely. You just knew they had come out, you could see them and feel that the lift increased pretty much.
- So the plane warned that now you are on the edge.
Yes, you knew the plane is about to spin."
- Antti Tani, Finnish fighter ace. 21,5 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 F/G:
"- Did pilots like the slats on the wings of the 109?
Yes, pilots did like them, since it allowed them better positions in dogfights along with using the flaps. These slats would also deploy slightly when the a/c was reaching stall at higher altitudes showing the pilot how close they were to stalling.....this was also useful when you were drunk "
- Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz Stigler.

Me 109 G:
"As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).

Me 109 G:
"There was nothing special in landing the plane. It was heavy but the wing slats opened up when speed slowed down and helped flying in slow speed."
-Kullervo Joutseno, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

Me 109 G:
"It was beneficial to keep the throttle a little open when landing. This made the landings softer and almost all three-point landings were successful with this technique. During landings the leading edge slats were fully open. But there was no troubles in landing even with throttle at idle."
-Mikko Lallukka, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy"

Me 109 G:
"We didn't have time for acrobatics but we weren't forbidden from doing them, though. Snap roll was fast and easy, and the engine didn't cough as in older planes. Immelman turn was splendid when you tightened the stick a bit on the top. The automatic wing slats did their trick and you didn't need ailerons at all for straightening the plane."
-Otso Leskinen, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew it [Bf109] could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."
- Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.

Source: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#slats

Offline FalconSix

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 246
P-51D vs Fw-190D
« Reply #83 on: August 10, 2005, 02:05:49 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Widewing
So, the best altitude for the Dora to engage the P-51D is right around 16k. However, that's not a good altitude to encounter the P-51B.


I figure sea level would be the best altitude for the Dora. That's where she has the biggest speed and climb advantage over both 51s.

Offline AKFokerFoder+

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 661
P-51D vs Fw-190D
« Reply #84 on: August 13, 2005, 01:20:22 AM »
Pony D  ENY 6

Dora   ENY 18

If you fly Knight, you are way often ENY restricted, so in that respect the Dora is better.

Given the two to fly in the MA, I take the Dora.  Why?  Because the Pony D is a better plane IMHO.  In fact I think it is the best MA plane.  

I just like cannon planes in the MA.

Lately I fly the 109F4 a lot.   I find it more of a challenge than the hot late rides.  You still don't get any respect for flying such a crate.  All you get is gang banged because you can't run.   But then again, if you want respect, you probably don't fly in the MA :)

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
P-51D vs Fw-190D
« Reply #85 on: August 13, 2005, 02:04:35 AM »
If you ain't fighting 5v1, you ain't flying AH.

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
P-51D vs Fw-190D
« Reply #86 on: August 13, 2005, 02:12:12 PM »
I actually wrote my response before I had even flown any of the 190s.  

Now, there is no comparison... the 190 in AH is ****.  

To top off the horrible manueverability, you get cockpit bars so thick they completely obscure planes that are 50 yards away.  

So P-51 hands down.. hell, P-40B hands down...

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
P-51D vs Fw-190D
« Reply #87 on: August 13, 2005, 05:49:26 PM »
Actually, the cockpit bars have already been slimmed down once.

 Here's the complete discussion when the new 190 first showed up;
 previous discussions


 As you can see, the original implementation was much more horrible. The current one is actually much thinner than the one I've suggested in that thread... and being used to IL2/FB's horrible, horrible 190 cockpits... frankly I think the AH 190 cockpits are not that bad.

 
 The key is to adjust the "alternate front view" by only a little bit. Veering off to the side too much actually doesn't help that much in deflection shooting.

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
P-51D vs Fw-190D
« Reply #88 on: August 13, 2005, 07:58:31 PM »
The side bars get in the way for deflection shooting... I haven't been able to find any angle that seems to be good for seeing around them and still being able to shoot.